Monday, October 20, 2014

Sudden, Like a Word

"In OUR beginning was the Word." Or so says Joan d'Argghh!: It "is the miracle that happened when man became a living soul. To even form a thought, a Word has to precede it. An Articulation of everything had to happen, a thing said, that contains everything that came into being after it."

Yes. The human word is very much like the metabolism which is the basis of life. There is nothing "in between" metabolism and death, just as there is nothing between word and... What could be its opposite, anyway? Anything we can come up with will be another word.

I think this equates to the Thomistic idea that to exist is to be intelligible, and to be intelligible is to partake of the Word. Likewise man: he has a soul, which is both his seat of intelligence and the intimate form of his identity. Thus, it has a public and private face, one that exteriorizes itself toward the objective horizon, another that is the invisible essence of the subjective horizon.

"I tried to think of my first thought and it's as impossible to know and as far away as the Big Bang. And yet, it's as true for the first man is it is for the cosmos. The Word is our soul" (J of A). Or as Aristotle put it, "the soul is all it knows." And it can know any-thing in potential: again, there is nothing in existence that cannot potentially be known, because to exist is to be intelligible.

Thus, it makes no sense to search for the "beginning" of man in historical time, for the simple reason that his beginning transcends time. "His body may have evolved from the brutes," writes GKC, "but we know nothing of any such transition that throws the smallest light upon his soul as it has shown itself in history."

The ambiguous term "prehistory" tends to elide this irruption (or vertical ingression) of soul within biology. It again implies a gradual transition where there cannot be one. It draws a linguistic veil over an intrinsic mystery and pretends the mystery is due to the veil, not vice versa. It is somewhat like the linguistic misdirection of calling a baby a fetus, not in order to comprehend, but in order to mis-comprehend or de-understand -- to render what must be a singularity into something gradual so as to avoid the sixth commandment.

Just so, the "monkey does not draw clumsily and a man cleverly.... A monkey does not do it at all; he does not begin to do it at all; he does not begin to begin to do it at all" (GKC). For to begin to do it is to be doing it: "A line of some kind is crossed before the first faint line can begin."

More generally -- you know, logic -- "it is hardly an adequate explanation of how a thing appeared for the first time to say it existed already." Unless the "already existing" is a radically different thing than we had thought it to be. Either way, the conventional explanation fails.

Importantly, it doesn't just fail atheists and other materialists, but it fails man. It is wholly unworthy of him, infinitely beneath his station. Now, why would man want to auto-castrate in this manner? I don't know, but it is mighty similar to the ubiquitous compulsion on the left to denigrate western civilization, or our Judeo-Christian heritage, or the United States, or the founders, or the free market, or technology...

But why, Bob, why? I'll tell you why: because man, as man, loves truth. Therefore, all one must do in order to pervert a man is to convince him that the lie is true, and he will defend it to the death. Or, in the case of a craven liberal, until it is extremely inconvenient to do so. Otherwise he requires a bodyguard of likeminded bullies to defend his outrageous claims.

This is why the left requires near total dominance of the media, academia, and the culture just to gain roughly fifty percent of the vote. Think about that: suppression of truth cannot occur on terms of equal power, because then truth can rely upon logic and evidence to win the day.

But the lie can hold 90% of the ideological ground, and this will never be sufficient, hence the inevitable "totalitarian temptation" of the left. Truth must be burned from our midst and its ground salted in order to kill it, but even then, you can't, because truth isn't ours to create or destroy (see the Resurrection for details). Or, at the other end, see the Soviet Union for details.

Yes, God makes a special covenant with the Jews, but Balthasar reminds us that prior to this, with Noah, he makes a more general covenant "with the whole of mankind and the whole of creation." I hadn't thought of that one before, but in Noah all peoples are explicitly blessed, although "they had already been implicitly blessed since Adam..." Even so, it's good to get things down on paper.

The wider point is that there exists "an historical logos proper to the 'peoples' as such," something touched upon by Joan, who writes of how interesting it is "that Man's first 'work' was to name the animals; to name them was to recognize his transcendence, his otherness. To see that none of them were like him was the first philosophy lesson of Man." In order to name at all, reality must first be intelligible; thus, to name is to recognize essences, which is the very basis of transcendent intelligence.

Balthasar writes of how, in the early fathers, there is "the curious alternation between two contradictory motifs. The first is a logos in the nonbiblical peoples, which in turn has in it seeds of the whole, which ripen toward the fullness of the incarnate Logos in the gospel." The second is the elucidation of the Logos as such, again, as particular is to universal. The task is actually to situate the latter in the former -- which is say, situate man in Christ rather than vice versa.

As to how this gets inverted, coincidentally, Balthasar cites Chesterton, who wrote of how "the world is full of Christian ideas gone mad. The Gospels and the Church are plundered like a fruit tree, but the fruit when separated from the trees goes rotten and cannot be used." Nor can the "ideas" of Christ be separated from the person of Christ without losing their value.

Here we confront the question of "stars that have long become extinct continuing to shine." How to tell the difference? In other words, we can look up to the night sky and the living star will look identical to the long dead one.

Every visible star is "a long time ago." But man is always "in the beginning," for we are the occasion for the light to be seen at all. It is again a matter of the Logos, for "wherever being is illuminated, however obscurely, there is [man's] humanity, and he becomes illuminated to himself as spirit."

The "miracle of language" involves an orthoparadoxical "unity of oneness and distance" (Balthasar). It is (as alluded to by Joan) "what gives man dominion over nature and raises him like a king above all the beasts.... By themselves they are unnamed, as they are incapable of raising themselves into the light of self-comprehension; but the word of man knows and names them from the height of his light, and, thus, he dominates them in their innermost being from a higher point than they can themselves" (Balthasar).

The ambiguous term "prehistory" tends to elide this irruption (or vertical ingression) of soul within biology. It again implies a gradual transition where there cannot be one. It draws a linguistic veil over an intrinsic mystery and pretends the mystery is due to the veil, not vice versa.

Nor can the "ideas" of Christ be separated from the person of Christ without losing their value.

That's where history goes wrong all the time.

All those people in the early church pooled what they had and had everything in common. That's such a great idea, let's make it compulsory and put totalitarian bureaucrats in charge. We'll give it a catchy name like, uh, communism. And we can use that idea about Ananias and Sapphira, too -- pay up or die. Don't question the people in charge,

Nor can the "ideas" of Christ be separated from the person of Christ without losing their value.

And for this reason, we continually try to pile ton upon ton of legislation where an ounce of formation would be infinitely more effective.

We might as well try to teach someone how to play the piano by physically forcing their fingers to hit the keys we want, without making any reference to music theory, musicians who went before, scales, notation, or any other aspect of what we would normally call music. This is not the relationship between a teacher and a student, this is the relationship between a programmer and his computer.

This is why the left requires near total dominance of the media, academia, and the culture just to gain roughly fifty percent of the vote

Yes, aside from Fox News, the Wall Street Journal, the Hoover Institute, the Cato Institute, George Mason University, the National Review, Commentary, American Spectator, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and a panoply of web properties, conservatives can barely get a word in edgewise.

One of the strongest parts of The New Class Conflict is Kotkin's analysis of the left wing clerisy and its impact on folks like Anonymous who have never been troubled by an original thought. Not only is liberal dominance just common sense, it can also be demonstrated empirically -- which highlights one of the points of the post, that in order for the left to defy reality, it requires great numbers of people in positions of authority, and total ideological conformity. That's what the clerisy accomplishes. What is even stranger is how harmful the views of the clerisy are to the people progressives supposedly care about (another point of the book).

Seriously, don't you guys read anything? Why don't you just worship a spaghetti monster or a water can? I'll take the likes of Neil deGrasse Tyson, Bill Nye, and Al Sharpton over the likes of you any day.

If you don't like it, you can always choose a nickname. Preferably one that's backed up by some slight validation, but even just a sock puppet is better than nuthin. If you choose to stay Anon and spout inanities, you can't expect no respect. For all we know, there could be two of you - one more dense than the other (though it's a toss up which is which, since there's no way to tell who's who...).

folks like Anonymous who have never been troubled by an original thought.

Pretty funny from a guy whose entire schtick is recycling stale religious ideas that haven't been improved on in a thousand years or so.

Besides, aren't conservatives ideologically suspicious of originality? I can respect that a bit -- there's some good reasons to prefer the tried and true -- but a conservative who seeks original thought is just a self-contradiction.

Being human, they can't help but be endlessly creative. Having amputated themselves from the divine, mostly what they create is ugliness, misery and degeneracy, when it doesn't result in outright, widespread slaughter.

That joke about the apparatchiks from earlier becomes a smidge less funny when you consider how many people were sent to the gulags for not sharing the correct vision.

Great book! His book on Hamilton is also fantastic. That those two dudes were on earth at the same time but also worked together, was pretty much the most wondrous meeting until Lennon bumped into McCartney.

Never read a bio of Franklin -- he wasn't an important founder except for the prestige he leant to the enterprise. He was a worldwide celebrity for a number of reasons, but I don't believe he had any important political ideas.

It's sad that the electoral success of one of our major parties is based on filling blacks with fear and hatred, convincing women that there is a war on them, and getting the young and stupid to flock to the polls. Look where its gotten these groups over the past six years.

Oh, and by the way, if you like your freedom of religion, you can keep your freedom of religion. Preferably behind closed doors, and away from polite society; we don't want your morals to be a bad influence on The Children™. They belong to the government, you know.

"But why, Bob, why? I'll tell you why: because man, as man, loves truth. Therefore, all one must do in order to pervert a man is to convince him that the lie is true, and he will defend it to the death. Or, in the case of a craven liberal, until it is extremely inconvenient to do so. Otherwise he requires a bodyguard of likeminded bullies to defend his outrageous claims."

The reason leftists are "intolerant" of bullies is they don't like the competition.

I get the impression sometimes that it's not so much that they are intolerant of bullies as they are intolerant of people standing up for themselves, considering how often it is that the kid who fights back in self defense gets punished worse than the tormentor who drove him to it.

True, but women who pretend to be men at women's colleges may not hold student government positions, because they benefit from white male privilege, and thus can't be expected to be properly sympathetic to the lives of diverse women.

That's why the left is do tedious, by the way -- it is an ontological wet blanket and metaphysical buzzkill.

Then why do you spend so much energy thinking about it? You seem far more obsessed with it than I am.

This comports with your preference for myth over reality though. If "the left" (whatever in the world that means) is harshing your buzz, perhaps that is because it is grappling with real-world problems, which are not necessarily all that much fun.

Funny thing about the left, when you ignore them or allow them to have their way, people die. When folks are at least trying to pay attention, it doesn't get all the way to the gulag or the gas chamber, but for instance veterans get put on secret waiting lists to see a doctor, so that they die of illnesses that would have been treatable had they been seen in a timely fashion. Or American agents killed by American guns in the hands of Mexican drug runners - to say nothing of the untold number of murdered Mexicans. Or children, particularly those who suffer with asthma, who are being sickened, paralyzed, and sometimes killed by the enterovirus which looks like it's been transmitted by the flood of illegal immigrant children who were enticed here by the administration. All the abortions.

Short of death, we have blatant ballot stuffing in Arizona this week. Christian ministers are being threatened with jail time and massive fines if they adhere to their beliefs and refuse to marry gay couples. Satanists are handing out pamphlets at schools, holding "educational" black masses and demanding that their religious displays be put up alongside Christian displays in some towns - and if you think that's merely atheists yanking the chain of Christians and that satanists are harmless, you probably haven't heard of this guy. Public school teachers can't keep their hands off the children, and the females are apparently just as bad as the males. Political leaders state publicly that they would like to see people jailed for questioning "settled" science.

Well, one could go on for pages and pages. As one does.

Why think about the wet blankets? They are only there to smother us, after all, nothing to worry about. They care. They care so much, about women, and little brown people, and the environment, and other peoples children. They care about all the victims of white male oppression. They care about the Palestinians, and the sex workers. They care about pleasuring themselves, subsidized, as often as possible. And they demand that we care about it all as passionately as they do, or face serious consequences.

Funny thing about words, they mean something, even when you try to make them meaningless/meansomehtingelse.

I'm in our Missouri Curriculum Framework Work Group again, yesterday and today, and the gobbledy-gook they resort to in order to try to make emptiness seem overfull, is astounding. For example, if you'd like to see what sewage looks like in word form, look up the "C3 Framework - College, Career & Civic Life for social studies state standards".

In short: I may not care about the left, but the left sure cares about me, i.e., the ordinary individual whom they wish to convert into a unit of the state. If not for that, I would't give them a second thought.

There are direct financial concerns as well. For example, in order to give my kid a decent education I have to send him to a private school. That costs real money, but I also have to pay property taxes just like everyone else to feed the state education beast....

In short: I may not care about the left, but the left sure cares about me, i.e., the ordinary individual whom they wish to convert into a unit of the state. If not for that, I would't give them a second thought. True of government, at least since 1913

What About Bob?

Who spirals down the celestial firepole on wings of slack, seizes the wheel of the cosmic bus, and embarks upin a bewilderness adventure of higher nondoodling? Who, haloed be his gnome, loiters on the threshold of the transdimensional doorway, looking for handouts from Petey? Who, with his doppelgägster and testy snideprick, Cousin Dupree, wields the pliers and blowtorch of fine insultainment for the ridicure of assouls? Who is the gentleman loaffeur who yoinks the sword from the stoned philosopher and shoves it in the breadbasket of metaphysical ignorance and tenure? Whose New Testavus for the Restavus blows the locked doors of the empyrean off their rusty old hinges and sheds a beam of intense darkness on the world enigma? Who is the Biggest Fakir of the Vertical Church of God Knows What, channeling the roaring torrent of 〇 into the feeble stream of cyberspace? Who is the masked pandit who lobs the first water balloon out the motel window at the annual Raccoon convention? Who is your nonlocal partner in disorganized crimethink? Shut your mouth! But I'm talkin' about bʘb! Then we can dig it!

Goround ZerO:

The Cosmic Area Rug:

The empty center is Beyond-Being. The circles are dimensions of Being. Your life is a path for the Spirit to pass from periphery to center. Thoughts and choices -- truth and virtue -- are the paving stones.

Only Error is Transmitted:

Buck Mulligan, Official Mascot

Official Sponsor of the Kosmic Kit Scouts, Laniakea Supercluster Chapter

Fuck You: War

Late last night, in search of light, I watched a ball of fire streak across the midnight sky. I watched it glow, then grow, then shrink, then sink into the silhouette of morning. As I watched it die, I said, ‘Hey, I’ve got a lot in common with that light.’ That’s right. I’m alive with the fire of my life, which streaks across my span of time and is seen by those who lift their eyes in search of light to help them though the long, dark night. --Nilsson

We see that yesterday is our birthday, today is our life, and tomorrow we are gone. So we have just one day to learn all we need to know, and that day is today. --Petey